About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Ucsf 7, San Francisco 7, Jason 2, Folsom 1, City 1, Us 1, Use Increment 1, Steinberg 1, Cappelas 1, Mr. Elliott 1, Indiana 1, Rapidfire 1, Treasure Island 1, Delta 1, Hald 1, Bart 1, Hierva Buena 1, Redevelopment Pre-dissolution 1, New Lab 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    October 5, 2012
    8:30 - 8:59pm PDT  

8:30pm
dissolution law, all of the payees associated with those contracts must be painfully lifted out, line item by line item, with source of funding on a schedule. that schedule is approved by the oversight board, the state department of finance every month. this test import -- jason indicated -- our surviving major redevelopment projects, equivalent to 20 billion, candlestick phase 1, and 2, mission bay, state -- transit center, all part of one redevelopment plan and other true wind-down activities honoring our commitment throughout the city whether in the third street
8:31pm
bayview corridor, like a bankruptcy, wind down pay off the debt so the tax increment in the series is available for distribution to the taxing entities, city, county, bart, schools. free up the taxes generated for distribution to the other entities. in the case of san francisco we do have a lot at stake. a number of these area plans which the commission approved the board approved as i indicated, made or approved, hunters point, mission bay, trans bay, another obligations that need to be implemented, they are in many cases 30 year plants. mission bay, hald done. trans way, just getting started, going for the terminal,
8:32pm
housing production, infrastructure needed along folsom, is getting started, 700 acres still left to be done over the course of 20-30 years. what 1483 did, because it is a separate legal entity, apart from the city and county of san francisco, acknowledged that the surviving obligations and successor agencies in fact are not part of the city and county of san francisco is adopted on february 1. on june 27, when the governor signed that bill into law, so-called clean-up, we had to revisit the decisions that the board and the mayor swiftly took in january in order to make sure that we could keep going. that is the role of the agency, stepping into the shoes of the former redevelopment agency for the surviving contract to
8:33pm
finish and wind down. unlike redevelopment pre-dissolution, the scope is narrow it is not a policymaking body; those policies have already been made by other bodies. the board of supervisors the legislation to create these area plans. narrow scope. winds down over time. the other issue that jason touched upon is the staff, the staff became staff of the city of february 1. anyone who was still in what is called an r class, working on surviving projects rather than being staff of the city and county of san francisco their staff of the separate body governed by a five-member commission appointed by the
8:34pm
appo inted by t hemayor with two specific seats for the districts. the primary districts for these areas; important for the board and approved by the mayor that the district included actual residents and stakeholders the successor agency commission. s in terms of the planning commission role, it is an change of the legislation, unchanged pre-dissolution when the board adopted resolution 1112 the creators oversight, that has been peeled off because state law has required it and the state department of finance has required that this oversight body simply just do fiduciary oversight, review and approve the payment schedules and other required
8:35pm
functions under state law and a separate body governed by the structure under the city and county of san francisco, the board appointment -- rather the mayor appointments of those five seats goals of the normal board appointment processes all other commissions and boards. the board retains its authority over the redevelopment plans. pursuant to the contracts in place. a preparation of taxes, tax increments of the annual budgeting process, the board retains the authority. director ram has a smaller scope when he sits on the oversight board; the other successor agency commission implements the plant, and the land use authority pursuant to the previously
8:36pm
approved document by the commission and the board. that concludes my presentation. i am available for questions as is mr. elliott. >> do we take public comment on this? we are opening the public comment. if any. seeing none -- commissioner -- >> there's been somewhere in the news, potential for ucsf to come up against square footag limitation, and possibly they could come up for an increase.
8:37pm
would this new commission be involved with that? the board of supervisor has to make the final decision. would the oversight commission make a recommendation? >> yes, ucsf and the successor agency have been working together; they are addicting of their own success. the buildings they have built within the 43 acres of mission bay south, will be maxed out on the envelope; they are not looking to expand on other sites in mission bay but within the existing site. the adopted a long-range plan and environmental plan document; mission bay has an environmental document that governs the implementation. there are contractual agreement between fossil and -- and ucsf that would in fact
8:38pm
limit ucsf's ability to grow and expand such that it would change the scope and nature of the entitlement. back in 1998, those vested rates -- fossil, cappelas, on the majority of the land and through the negotiation process the land was donated to ucsf to allow it to grow. in terms of coming back to this commission and the board, we are still working with them on their plans and proposals, whether a review based on environmental what is needed and what is necessary , and whether that would trigger any approval or change in the redevelopment plan. it is still a work in progress. the successor agency commission would have a role. as will the oversight board. it changes the level of
8:39pm
increment; anything having to do with money, there are more steps rather than fewer with the creation of this new board. the board of supervisors in the and overseeing it all is the state department of finance. >> i am not clear about staffing. how does it work? separate staff that only staffs the new commission? and staff of the oversight board? the oversight board the only fiduciary responsibility, yet the commission is policymaking. for us the planning department, they do the work and make recommendations. we are the part-time people. how will that work in the system. i am not understanding it. >> understate dissolution law, the oversight board is entitled
8:40pm
to select staff, to engage staff. the staff of the successor agency commission, repairing these obligation payment schedules for the review and consideration; i staff the oversight board; the new successor agency commission would select a director, a staff, the existing staff is there, governed by the successor agency commission. the way to look at it, it is similar to hpc; the successor agency staff would staff the oversight board. it is the successor agency commission that would govern all activities of the successor agency staff including the director and
8:41pm
day-to-day operations and management. >> so there will be two directors now? one for the oversight board, one for the successor agency, or one person can do both? >> not necessarily. it is the oversight board's option to provide their own staff if they so chose. the successor commission can select the tone director. >> it is essentially the same procedures. it is confusing because essentially for all practical purposes, it is like to be the same staff. if tiffany is chosen as the director she will report to two different commissions. same amount of work. the work is now -- most things have to go to two bodies
8:42pm
instead of one so it is confusing. it will likely be the same group of people and send direct reporting. the oversight board with respect to financial matters and the successor agency commission with regard to project implementation matters. >> and how often with these -- each of these boards and the commission be expected to meet? is it going to have more of a regular schedule like we and the commission have? or ad hoc? >> because there are these new statutory deadlines, due diligence reviews, audit, filing deadlines, we have met with great frequency. the oversight board in order to make those statutory deadlines there are regular meetings of the oversight board, typically twice a month.
8:43pm
we expect the successor agency commission in order to be helpful to the public, to establish regular meetings of the new successor commission, and to the extent that there are special meetings needed, we would have special meetings. >> the whole system seems a little bit bizarre to me. i don't see how you get cost savings. i thought one of the reasons we were getting rid of redevelopment is to reduce overall cost from the state level obviously, but from the local government level that is bound to be some sort of reduction. >> there was a reduction. other folks opted to move on to something else in the private sector, of 112 positions there were about 50 -- whether layoffs because of the state law -- not all projects survived.
8:44pm
not all projects have an existing contract, or something recognize the the state where we can continue to implement it, and drawdown the funding source. the work in soma, sixth street, third street, we partner to do small business loans, midmarket project was coming back again, a survey area, no agreement in place that would allow to move forward. there was no contract in place. the oversight board still has to approve the minister the budget, the staff. what are the staff cost? the oversight board in fact
8:45pm
could reduce costs if it disagreed with those administrative costs. is the same staff doing more work. it would have to approve administrative budget and the budget would be sent for approval to the oversight board; it also has to go through a process again like every other department, annual appropriations, use increment, in indiana can say up or down i disagree, and they could say no, reduce reduce reduce. two would be from district 6 and one from district 10. >> all of the five seats must
8:46pm
be residents of san francisco. >> -- >> i believe the mayor's office, because of the scope and nature, it will not be city staff as was the case the oversight board given the nature of the approval of bonds, land use at the time, three of those seats were filled by department heads; in this case the mayor's office is committed to diversity and being responsive to stakeholders in those communities. the appointments have not been made. >> i was trying to understand -- >> i think they will be real people. >> it seems a little bit redundant. i don't get that. >> it to function of state law, this redundancy.
8:47pm
>> the reason for this new commission is that state law requires a system where there is a function separate from government. >> for all intents and purposes, it is still government. >> we are faced with this strange, new lab, to have a separate entity, and we have to set up something to oversee that function. >> at the end of the data still the city's agency, and the city making the appointment and i don't get it. i guess it is not for me to get. >> state law. we are trying to live within the four corners here. >> thank you for your report. i have a couple of questions. under redevelopment, 80% of the tax increment was to flow back into the redevelopment area. with the dissolution,
8:48pm
we were told that absent any substitute agencies this money would flow into the general fund of the city or county; in our case the city and county of san francisco. under successor agency, with a redevelopment funds or criminal tax funds clawback of the area or to the general fund? >> the answer is yes and yes. anything with the tax increment, 60% infrastructure, -- down the line to the district. in those areas funds do flow pursuant to the contract in
8:49pm
place to the taxing entities, in the format described, 80-20%. -- it requires an increment in infrastructure to make it happen. 100% of 0 is 0. once development happens, we are looking at changes to state law to try to capture the increment and the upfront investment required to make that kind of brownfield site go. and flow through the general fund. all things considered obligated, they have underlying contracts; if for some reason the tax increment would flow to that obligation or contract and when paid off like a bankruptcy is done and it can flow to the normal distribution. over time as the debt is paid off, outstanding bonds, other
8:50pm
uses pursuant to the contract of the surviving areas, it would be under the normal distribution. hierva buena is one, golden gateway is another; obligations until the contract is complete. >> where there is a contract and money to flow it will flow to the same manner; and new funds will flow to the general fund once there is something to flow. the corollary to that is part of prop c is capture of redevelopment funds for specific housing. with these funds like golden gateway or hierva buena, who finish their funding with infrastructure and housing within the area, or would that money be taken out of project contracted?
8:51pm
>> your absolutely right. there are outstanding bonds that you described; as those get paid off the delta between those as part of the capture. >> this is changing nothing in regard to prop c. this is dealing with pose redevelopment money. for lack of a better term, redevelopment areas. my second question, members of the commission for the successor agency, are they it will? are they term appointments or indefiniete? >> they are staggered appointments. each of the members will serve
8:52pm
for a term of four years at the pleasure of the mayor without compensation or reimbursement. >> they are terms, but at the pleasure the mayor. presumably that those areas that did not reach the status of the development such as treasure island, would be able to be infrastructure finance districts; the successor only deals with those areas that were already established as redevelopment? >> yes that is correct. >> my final question is, what oversight of the planning commission have on these areas? we used to have design oversight to some degree. we obviously have oversight over on adjoining areas even with presidio and others in terms of transportation and
8:53pm
impact of traffic. >> are there any amendments for those design developments, would come to this commission. to the extent that any of these areas have applications that come to this commission we have established agreements with the department for review not only the horizontal infrastructure of the design of buildings; there is a process of each of these areas has for the planning staff and commission. >> thanks for the presentation. [indiscernible] those projects may not have happened without redevelopment. it will be interesting to hear
8:54pm
how it's going to work. there was talk when the governor was proposing to eliminate redevelopment about some successor -- not the successor agency -- but some ability for cities and counties to take advantage of some of the tools like infrastructure finance district, are we seeing that at the state level? >> certainly at the legislature there were two infrastructure proposals -- steinberg using existing redevelopment law, but with a smaller tool, not taking the school share. the governor vetoed those bills on saturday. his rationale was he wanted cities and counties to focus is winding down and up the
8:55pm
dissolution law. we are hopeful that we will take another run at the next legislative cycle; it was not time yet in the governor's view, but there was another support for another finance tool that was much more narrow. >> thank you for the clarity of your presentation particularly with such rapidfire in such short time. actually in your last round of answers you did already touched on the question i had , with the end of redevelopment we lost a large number of planners and designers; you answer that planning under specific assignment will continue the legacy particularly because we do not have redevelopment laws that govern the physical outcome which means that many of these
8:56pm
projects have to be transition to the actual codes and district in which they occur. is that a correct interpretation? >> if the underlining zoning in each of these large plan areas does not have the appropriate sud or planning code then yes, prior to expiration of these areas, planning staff engage in a process where they would be a rezoning of sorts. >> in the three large areas that the successor agency still has jurisdiction over, zoning would be the same as it was. the zoning is still in place. redevelopment plans are still in place. outside of those areas it does revert to the department. >> what i am interested in is to see redevelopment switching
8:57pm
into institutional memory of the planning staff, that is my interest and questions i'm posing. the second part of what i'm saying is for example, implied update of institutional master plan such as ucs were to occur under thef watchful eye of the planning department. >> they are exempt from our normal entitlement. >> under redevelopment -- >> i don't believe that is correct. >> state agencies are exempt. but there are other mechanisms whether contractual,
8:58pm
the private party within ucsf, the planning staff in the successor agency staff are working with ucsf, what is your plan? how do you expect will forward? how does this relate to existing zoning? >> i am comfortable with the checks and balance based in your presentation. >> commissioner -- >> i guess for the benefit of the public, treasure island has not been mentioned. commissioner -- mentioned it but it is not among the successor board and successor commission's jurisdiction because they have a separate redevelopment. or what has happened with that? >> treasure island is redevelopment with a small "
8:59pm
r". in light of this uncertainty, in 2011, the governor signed it into law, june 28, 2011, the mayor's office team, working with the development partner -- this is uncertain. it looks like the governor will abolish the development but there is another tool, infrastructure district. >> thank you commissioners, appreciate your time today. >> that will conclude item 5, on the successor agency. commissioners you are now at your 15-min.